Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
the money for payment is alloted by bureaucrats and politicians. Is it dishonesty or ignorance that has you repeating this bunk?
Is it dishonesty or ignorance that has you interpreting the governments role as inserting itself between you and your physician? Certainly it must be to suggest governments where universal or single payer exist do this to a greater extent than ANY insurance model. They fund and provide oversight from fraud and had you bothered to read the link to an American doctor I provided you would have gotten a first hand acoount of the very graphic difference.
Can you as a group organize and force compliance from insurance companies to force them to forego their profits? Voters can force compliance of governments....at least they can in a functioning democracy.
Take a walk and talk to your seniors on Medicare and ask them how the majority like it? Do you foresee any party in your country attempting to dismantle that feature without knowing it would be taken to the woodshed by the single largest voting demographic in America?
Dates various nations adopted Universal healthcare. It doesn't seem like any of these countries are clamoring to have USA style for-profit systems back.
Looks like Norway has been at it for over 100 years. One would think if it was a disaster they would have figured it out by now.
What's remarkable to me is how people seem to think all those countries' systems are the same. That there's some sort of 'universal healthcare' system that the US needs to adopt.
Ignorance is rife where you're at. Your assumption you have the only definitions of free and right sorted is factual only in your own mind.
In truly free nations, governments perform the will of the people. Freedoms and rights are buzzwords used like confetti. To be truly free with all of your rights intact you'd need to live alone on an island.
As soon as you share your space with any other sentient being , freedom and rights become a compromise exchange.
Hooold on. The semantics game is what gets everyone confused, and people do this all the time. We have to first agree on what we mean by a word in order to have an honest conversation. It's like if you say you want a car, meaning specifically a small car, and I say "well some people's definition of a car is any type of automobile". Yeah, but that's not what you're talking about.
You have freedom from the coercion of others - the freedom to be left alone and allowed to make your own choices, and you have freedom from responsibility and risk.
The US was originally based on the former rather than the latter. That's the point of Ben Franklin and Samuel Adams' famous quotes berating the colonists who preferred safety and security over liberty.
Sure, you can prefer a system where you're (supposedly) taken care of, but a lot of us prefer that people stop trying to force their master plan on us, even if that means there's more risk. The difference is that we're not stopping you from organizing with like-minded people for security, but you're all collectively making that decision and to impose it on us as well.
What's remarkable to me is how people seem to think all those countries' systems are the same. That there's some sort of 'universal healthcare' system that the US needs to adopt.
This is why it's so confounding to those of us with one of the models reading these stupid memes.
America has the opportunity to use it's time wisely to thoroughly study and implement the best parts and leave out the worst. Think of the huge advantage 330 million consumers would give in eliminating the kinds of outrageous profiteering you've seen with the likes of Martin Schkreli. For every like example there are untold numbers of anonymous victims who've suffered.
Instead of devoting resources to study what's good and correct about the premise of Universal/Single payer; all the time is spent vilifying them while you continue to lurch along in this grotesque drama with people suffering for no good reason other than idiocy and entrenched dogma.
Hooold on. The semantics game is what gets everyone confused, and people do this all the time. We have to first agree on what we mean by a word in order to have an honest conversation. It's like if you say you want a car, meaning specifically a small car, and I say "well some people's definition of a car is any type of automobile". Yeah, but that's not what you're talking about.
You have freedom from the coercion of others - the freedom to be left alone and allowed to make your own choices, and you have freedom from responsibility and risk.
The US was originally based on the former rather than the latter. That's the point of Ben Franklin and Samuel Adams' famous quotes berating the colonists who preferred safety and security over liberty.
Sure, you can prefer a system where you're (supposedly) taken care of, but a lot of us prefer that people stop trying to force their master plan on us, even if that means there's more risk. The difference is that we're not stopping you from organizing with like-minded people for security, but you're all collectively making that decision and to impose it on us as well.
Condescending "(supposedly) taken care of" nonsense notwithstanding, you are suggesting all those people thusly provided something they enacted through referendums are not intelligent enough to denote the difference between preferring a system they PAY for to one they can see the most graphic example of greed based profiteering being used elsewhere?
Modern day Luddites commonly make the suggestion they prefer total autonomy to make good or poor decisions over that of some designated entity they themselves have installed by congress to provide oversight and some semblance of order.
How is it do you think America got to be the amazing entity it is today? Through individuals having premiere choice in every thought word and deed? Combined efforts forcing compliance upon all have been necessary for everything from the elimination of slavery to achieving the military might you currently enjoy.
Were all the framers on board with awarding freedom to their slaves, or were they as a group held to a higher standard by the will of the majority?
In the Declaration of Independence, it states that we have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Note that you cannot have a decent life without good health care. The Declaration of Independence is considered by many to the philosophical foundation of American freedom.
It seems to me that health care is essential to our safety and happiness.
Can't have a decent life without food.
Can't have a decent life without shelter.
Can't have a decent life without medical care.
See how the list can go on and on...
I mean, you really don't think that is what it was saying right?
Yeah, you do, because the fact of the matter is you have never really read anything about our government and are just parroting off all the cool handouts you would like others to provide you.
Do you want to know what you have a right to once society collapses due to all the people demanding others provide for them?
A hole that they will push you in after you have starved to death and nobody will care about you because they are too busy trying to survive this wonderful "hand out" world you people demanded.
Instead of devoting resources to study what's good and correct about the premise of Universal/Single payer; all the time is spent vilifying them while you continue to lurch along in this grotesque drama with people suffering for no good reason other than idiocy and entrenched dogma.
The other lesson is to study how those systems came about and were phased in.
My best guess as to the real source of the argument is that a large cohort of people are actually worse off with a national plan. If you have Medicare (the 65+ government plan), good workplace healthcare, are young/confident/healthy, some other retirement-based plan, or to some degree Medicaid (the penury-based program), a lot of what a national plan really means is increased cost without increased benefit.
After all, the demo in democracy will tend to act in a self-interested fashion, especially in a nation that is turning away from a common culture and towards increased tribalism.
....why stop there and not say that housing is a right, college is a right? You have to pay to get housing, you have to pay to get a college education, and not expect someone else to hand it to you for free. It is not free, because someone else paid for it. How is it a right? Entitlement much?
Because the need for healthcare is an inevitability, not a luxury. College is just a place to get educated (or a place to get a job if your a piece of ****). While I think we should spend more public money on it, since student debt is crippling far too many people, I don't think 1) everyone should go to college or 2) no one should invest in their own college. And this is simply because college isn't or shouldn't be necessary for one's life. Healthcare, however, for better or worse, is necessary.
As far as housing, it would not be a sustainable method to provide everyone housing. At least providing everyone college would probably result in more people being able to provide for themselves and would then be able to have more money that we can tax to pay for the free college program. Housing is a little different. It's one thing to help out those who just lost their job or something; it's something else entirely to do it for everyone.
Because the need for healthcare is an inevitability, not a luxury. College is just a place to get educated (or a place to get a job if your a piece of ****). While I think we should spend more public money on it, since student debt is crippling far too many people, I don't think 1) everyone should go to college or 2) no one should invest in their own college. And this is simply because college isn't or shouldn't be necessary for one's life. Healthcare, however, for better or worse, is necessary.
As far as housing, it would not be a sustainable method to provide everyone housing. At least providing everyone college would probably result in more people being able to provide for themselves and would then be able to have more money that we can tax to pay for the free college program. Housing is a little different. It's one thing to help out those who just lost their job or something; it's something else entirely to do it for everyone.
You can argue that college should have the same efficacy measures applied to it as healthcare does. We should be more interested in subsidizing (or potentially socializing) useful healthcare in order to better the country. By the same token, some college classes and programs should be more communally backed than others.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
